in

Induced plasticity alters responses to conspecific interactions in seedlings of a perennial grass

  • 1.

    Bradshaw, A. D. Evolutionary significance of phenotypic plasticity in plants. Adv. Genet. 155, 115–155 (1965).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 2.

    Sultan, S. E. Phenotypic plasticity and plant adaptation. Acta Bot. Neerl. 44, 363–383 (1995).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 3.

    Callaway, R. M., Pennings, S. C. & Richards, C. L. Phenotypic plasticity and interactions among plants. Ecology 84, 1115–1128 (2003).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 4.

    Fordyce, J. A. The evolutionary consequences of ecological interactions mediated through phenotypic plasticity. J. Exp. Biol. 209, 2377–2383 (2006).

    PubMed 
    Article 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

  • 5.

    Owusu-Nketia, S. et al. Functional roles of root plasticity and its contribution to water uptake and dry matter production of CSSLs with the genetic background of KDML105 under soil moisture fluctuation. Plant Prod. Sci. 21, 266–277 (2018).

    CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 6.

    Acciaresi, H. & Guiamet, J. Below- and above-ground growth and biomass allocation in maize and Sorghum halepense in response to soil water competition. Weed Res. 50, 481–492 (2010).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 7.

    Oduor, A. M. O. Evolutionary responses of native plant species to invasive plants: A review. New Phytol. 200, 986–992 (2013).

    PubMed 
    Article 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

  • 8.

    Mealor, B. & Hild, A. L. Potential selection in native grass populations by exotic invasion. Mol. Ecol. 15, 2291–2300 (2006).

    CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

  • 9.

    Ferrero-Serrano, Á., Hild, A. L. & Mealor, B. A. Can invasive species enhance competitive ability and restoration potential in native grass populations?. Restor. Ecol. 19, 545–551 (2011).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 10.

    Goergen, E. M., Leger, E. A. & Espeland, E. K. Native perennial grasses show evolutionary response to Bromus tectorum (cheatgrass) invasion. PLoS ONE 6, 1–8 (2011).

    Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 

  • 11.

    Melgoza, G., Nowak, R. S. & Tausch, R. J. Soil water exploitation after fire: competition between Bromus tectorum (cheatgrass) and two native species. Oecologia 83, 7–13 (1990).

    ADS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 12.

    Reichenberger, G. & Pyke, D. A. Impact of early root competition on fitness components of four semiarid species. Oecologia 85, 159–166 (1990).

    ADS 
    PubMed 
    Article 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

  • 13.

    Phillips, A. J. & Leger, E. A. Plastic responses of native plant root systems to the presence of an invasive annual grass 1. Am. J. Bot. 102, 73–84 (2015).

    PubMed 
    Article 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

  • 14.

    Cipollini, D., Purrington, C. B. & Bergelson, J. Costs of induced responses in plants. Basic Appl. Ecol. 4, 79–85 (2003).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 15.

    Relyea, R. Competitor-induced plasticity in tadpoles: consequences, cues, and connections to predator-induced plasticity. Ecol. Monogr. 72, 523–540 (2002).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 16.

    War, A. R., Sharma, H. C., Paulraj, M. G., War, M. Y. & Ignacimuthu, S. Herbivore induced plant volatiles: their role in plant defense for pest management. Plant Signal. Behav. 6, 1973–1978 (2011).

    CAS 
    PubMed 
    PubMed Central 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 17.

    Karban, A. R., Baldwin, I. T., Baxter, K. J., Laue, G. & Felton, G. W. Communication between plants: induced resistance in wild tobacco plants following clipping of neighboring sagebrush. Oeciologia 125, 66–71 (2000).

    ADS 
    CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 18.

    Alexander, J. M., Diez, J. M. & Levine, J. M. Novel competitors shape species’ responses to climate change. Nature 525, 515–518 (2015).

    ADS 
    CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

  • 19.

    Chesson, P. Mechanisms of maintenance of species diversity. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 31, 343–366 (2000).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 20.

    HilleRisLambers, J., Adler, P. B., Harpole, W. S., Levine, J. M. & Mayfield, M. M. Rethinking community assembly through the lens of coexistence theory. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 43, 227–248 (2012).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 21.

    Mayfield, M. M. & Levine, J. M. Opposing effects of competitive exclusion on the phylogenetic structure of communities. Ecol. Lett. 13, 1085–1093 (2010).

    PubMed 
    Article 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

  • 22.

    Muthukrishnan, R., Sullivan, L. L., Shaw, A. K. & Forester, J. D. Trait plasticity alters the range of possible coexistence conditions in a competition–colonisation trade-off. Ecol. Lett. 23, 791–799 (2020).

    PubMed 
    Article 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

  • 23.

    Pérez-Ramos, I. M., Matías, L., Gómez-Aparicio, L. & Godoy, Ó. Functional traits and phenotypic plasticity modulate species coexistence across contrasting climatic conditions. Nat. Commun. 10, 1–11 (2019).

    Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 

  • 24.

    Roscher, C., Schumacher, J., Schmid, B. & Schulze, E.-D. Contrasting effects of intraspecific trait variation on trait-based niches and performance of legumes in plant mixtures. PLoS ONE 10, 1–18 (2015).

    Article 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar 

  • 25.

    Liu, B. et al. Complementarity in nutrient foraging strategies of absorptive fine roots and arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi across 14 coexisting subtropical tree species. New Phytol. 208, 125–136 (2015).

    PubMed 
    Article 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

  • 26.

    Turcotte, M. M. & Levine, J. M. Phenotypic plasticity and species coexistence. Trends Ecol. Evol. 31, 803–813 (2016).

    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 27.

    Foster, B. L. Establishment, competition and the distribution of native grasses among Michigan old-fields. J. Ecol. 87, 476–489 (1999).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 28.

    James, J. J., Svejcar, T. J. & Rinella, M. J. Demographic processes limiting seedling recruitment in arid grassland restoration. J. Appl. Ecol. 48, 961–969 (2011).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 29.

    Larson, J. E., Anacker, B. L., Wanous, S. & Funk, J. L. Ecological strategies begin at germination: Traits, plasticity and survival in the first 4 days of plant life. Funct. Ecol. 34, 968–979 (2020).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 30.

    Foxx, A. Data: Induced plasticity alters responses to conspecific interactions in seedlings of a perennial grass. Mendeley Data https://doi.org/10.17632/hhpnttctth.1 (2021).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 31.

    R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Found. Stat. Comput. Vienna, Austria (2020).

  • 32.

    Crawley, M. J. Statistics: An introduction using R (Wiley, Hoboken, 2005).

    MATH 
    Book 

    Google Scholar 

  • 33.

    Kraft, N. J. B., Crutsinger, G. M., Forrestel, E. J. & Emery, N. C. Functional trait differences and the outcome of community assembly: An experimental test with vernal pool annual plants. Oikos 123, 1391–1399 (2014).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 34.

    Foxx, A. J. & Kramer, A. T. Variation in number of root tips influences survival in competition with an invasive grass. J. Arid Environ. 179, 104189 (2020).

    ADS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 35.

    McGlone, C. M., Sieg, C. H., Kolb, T. E. & Nietupsky, T. Established native perennial grasses out-compete an invasive annual grass regardless of soil water and nutrient availability. Plant Ecol. 213, 445–457 (2011).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 36.

    Liu, J. G., Mahoney, K. J., Sikkema, P. H. & Swanton, C. J. The importance of light quality in crop-weed competition. Weed Res. 49, 217–224 (2009).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 37.

    Westoby, M. A leaf-height-seed (LHS) plant ecology strategy scheme. Plant Soil 199, 213–227 (1998).

    CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 38.

    Gundel, P. E., Pierik, R., Mommer, L. & Ballaré, C. L. Competing neighbors: Light perception and root function. Oecologia 176, 1–10 (2014).

    ADS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 39.

    Poorter, H. et al. Biomass allocation to leaves, stems and roots: Meta-analyses of interspecific variation and environmental control. New Phytol. 193, 30–50 (2012).

    CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 40.

    Berendse, F. & Móller, F. Effects of competition on root-shoot allocation in Plantago lanceolata L.: Adaptive plasticity or ontogenetic drift?. Plant Ecol. 201, 567–573 (2009).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 41.

    Ghalambor, C. K., McKay, J. K., Carroll, S. P. & Reznick, D. N. Adaptive versus non-adaptive phenotypic plasticity and the potential for contemporary adaptation in new environments. Funct. Ecol. 21, 394–407 (2007).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 42.

    Bennett, J. A., Riibak, K., Tamme, R., Lewis, R. J. & Pärtel, M. The reciprocal relationship between competition and intraspecific trait variation. J. Ecol. 104, 1410–1420 (2016).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 43.

    Jupp, A. & Newman, I. Morphological and anatomical effects of severe drought on the roots of Lolium perenne L. New Phytol. 105, 393–402 (1987).

    CAS 
    PubMed 
    Article 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

  • 44.

    Foxx, A. J. & Kramer, A. T. Hidden variation: Cultivars and wild plants differ in trait variation with surprising root trait outcomes. Restor. Ecol. https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.13336 (2020).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 45.

    Zeldin, J., Lichtenberger, T. M., Foxx, A. J., Webb Williams, E. & Kramer, A. T. Intraspecific functional trait structure of restoration-relevant species: Implications for restoration seed sourcing. J. Appl. Ecol. 57, 864–874 (2020).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 46.

    Abbott, J. M. & Stachowicz, J. J. The relative importance of trait vs genetic differentiation for the outcome of interactions among plant genotypes. Ecology 97, 84–94 (2016).

    PubMed 
    Article 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

  • 47.

    Adler, P. B. et al. Competition and coexistence in plant communities: Intraspecific competition is stronger than interspecific competition. Ecol. Lett. 21, 1319–1329 (2018).

    PubMed 
    Article 
    PubMed Central 

    Google Scholar 

  • 48.

    Schroeder-Georgi, T. et al. From pots to plots: Hierarchical trait-based prediction of plant performance in a mesic grassland. J. Ecol. 104, 206–218 (2016).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 49.

    Taylor, D. & Aarssen, L. Complex competitive relationships among genotypes of three perennial grasses: Implications for species coexistence. Am. Nat. 136, 305–327 (1990).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 50.

    Espeland, E. K. et al. Evolution of plant materials for ecological restoration: Insights from the applied and basic literature. J. Appl. Ecol. 54, 102–115 (2017).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 51.

    Rottstock, T., Kummer, V., Fischer, M. & Joshi, J. Rapid transgenerational effects in Knautia arvensis in response to plant community diversity. J. Ecol. 105, 714–725 (2017).

    CAS 
    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • 52.

    Álvarez-Yépiz, J. C., Búrquez, A. & Dovčiak, M. Ontogenetic shifts in plant–plant interactions in a rare cycad within angiosperm communities. Oecologia 175(2), 725–735. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00442-014-2929-3 (2014).

    ADS 
    Article 
    PubMed 

    Google Scholar 


  • Source: Ecology - nature.com

    Waging a two-pronged campaign against climate change

    MIT.nano receives American Institute of Architects’s Top Ten Award for sustainable design